I think your argument is slightly confusing and would welcome some clarification.

The way I see it is hospital birth and vaccination are both interventions pushed by mainstream medicine as being for the 'greater good', in that none of us know what the future holds (illness, complications at birth etc) so let's take a preventative step by birthing with a medical team, in a hospital setting, and then vaccinate the child 'just in case' (hep b is a true indication of this, since few newborns use needles or have sex, but they can be exposed to heb b in a hospital setting and vaxxing at birth ticks the box of having 'fixed that')


Those that are anti vax and home birth generally subscribe to a philosophy of trust in the bodies ability to both birth and the child's protect itself from illness. They see interventions as actually prohibitive to optimal health and care, and question the expectation we, as consumers, should just accept the info given to us by mainstream medicine. Most research the issues thoroughly and come up with their own health care model (birth with midwives, delayed or partial vax, optimal food for health and nutrition, long term breastfeeding etc).

To reduce both birth and vax down to adverse reactions is seemingly naive of both arguments for home birth and anti vax. As meow says, it's about thriving not just surviving.

And on the issue of birth rape, how would you describe the forced insertion of instruments into someone's vagina while they scream no? If it was happening anywhere else it would be rape, but we have this idea that in a hospital we say goodbye to bodily autonomy, and our body is subjected to medicine, while we become passive recipients. Women's bodies are not objects, and just because many of us cannot speak in labour, doesn't mean we're not thinking and feeling. Women deserve to birth how ever the **** they choose, and really it's no one else's business. Even discussions about best outcomes for the baby often negate the mothers wishes and bodily autonomy.

Trust that no mother wants to put her child in harm, but we should not assume that the baby's needs are of greater importance than the mothers bodily rights. We should always keep mothers rights in our mind, while negotiating the best outcome for both mother and baby. And with vaxxing, we must assume parents are doing the best for their child as they see it. The risks of side effects aren't the only reason people choose not to vaccinate, some believe vaccinating actually compromises the child's own immunity, and lulls the community into a false sense of security about illness (and so go out when sick and spread diseases).

I have no doubt vaxxing is beneficial to society, and to our overall ability to fight diseases, but I still made a choice about how to do it on my own terms (ie delayed and partial vaxxing). I think philosophically home birth and anti vax subscribe to the same philosophy which is reactionary to mainstream medicine and their interventionist, preventative health model.